Ron Paul, Essay Example

I chose Ron Paul for the purposes of this paper because he has had such a massive impact on American political thought since he began his career in public life back in the 1970’s. He was a long-time member of the House of Representatives and while there, served on the influential Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee and has been a long-time critic of the Federal Reserve. Although his presidential bids in 1988, 2008 and 2012 were unsuccessful, those bids served as a platform for him to air his libertarian views and make them a part of mainstream American political discourse.  (About Ron Paul 1). He acknowledges this himself in his “Revolution: A Manifesto” in which he states “If we want to live in a free society, we have to break free from the artificial limitations on free debate and start asking serious questions again. I am happy that my campaign for president has finally raised some of them” (Paul 5).  He has also contributed to the American conversation on libertarianism with his 10 books on a variety of social and economic issues (About Ron Paul 2).

Ron Paul And the Legal Theory of Democracy

David Held, in outlining the Legal Theory of Democracy, maintains that this political perspective of democracy believes in the least amount of government necessary and that the free market should be allowed to function on its own.  Majority rule and effective leadership are needed to accomplish this (Held 207).  The next part of this paper will explore the ways in which Ron Paul exemplifies this particular theory of democracy.

Ron Paul almost perfectly epitomizes the Held’s Legal Theory of Democracy, the cornerstone of which is “minimal state intervention is society and private life” (Held 207). He is a strong libertarian and in his article, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It”, he articulates this view by stating that, “The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution” (Paul 2). He applied his theories while in Congress by voting against government deficit, government spending and initiatives, and even promote the elimination of some federal agencies, calling them “pointless bureaucracies” (Ron Paul for Congress 2).  In this last comment, he is also holding true to the legal theory of democracy, which holds the “minimization of bureaucracy” up as one of its ideals (Held 207).

Held also notes that in the legal theory of democracy, “the free market [is] given the fullest possible scope” (Held 207).  Paul epitomizes this as well. He has long been a member of the Mises Institute, an Alabama-based think tank which promotes the libertarian economic ideals of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises; the institute has the express goal of “defense of the market economy and private property….while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive” (Mises Institute 1).  In a recent Bloomberg debate with the economist Paul Krugman, Ron Paul came out very clearly in favor of the free market ideal, saying, “I believe in a very small government…I don’t like a managed economy, whether its central economic planning or monetary policy or even Congress doing it” (Adams 1).  He has been consistent on his fiscal views, and while in Congress, he fought to reduce or even eliminate federal taxes and also opposed many of the policies of the Federal Reserve, of which he has long been a critic (Ron Paul for Congress 1). He has also written extensively on this subject. His book, “Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property” is a compendium of many of his most well-known speeches given in the course of his political career, including a Congressional speech in 1984 in which he likens government to “a malignant growth” and says “we can’t just ignore it, treating only the symptoms, hoping they are not reliable signs that a horrible disease has struck our nation” (Paul 4).

Another important part of the legal theory of democracy is to “restrict the role of interest groups, particularly trade unions” and reduce the “threat of collectivism” (Held 207). Ron Paul is right in line with this aspect of the theory as well.  Although he believes in the right of workers to organize, he does not believe that unions should receive any “special benefits or privileges” for being part of the union, nor should there be any legislation made to particularly benefit the union (On the Issues 1).  When Michigan recently became the 24^th “Right to Work” state, which surprised many due to its strong history of unions mostly centered around the auto industry, Ron Paul wrote an article entitled “’Right to Work’ is Good for Business, Labor and Liberty” in which he defended Michigan’s actions and “Right to Work” legislation in general, stating that this type of legislation “prevents states from forcing employees to operate as closed union shops…and prevent unions from forcing individuals to join” (Paul 1).  He also voted “no” on the Free Choice Act which would have restricted businesses from interfering with their employees attempts at union formation (On the Issues 2).

Thus, we can see from the several points mentioned in the paragraphs above that Ron Paul very much typifies the Legal Theory of Democracy, with its emphasis on minimizing government regulation in people’s lives, individual liberty, and an equally liberated free market.

Critique of Ron Paul from the participatory democracy viewpoint

The participatory theory of democracy, as outlined by Held, is one which “an equal right to liberty and self-development can only be achieved in a ‘participatory’ society which…contributes to the formation of a knowledgeable citizenry capable of taking a sustained interest in the governing process” (Held 215).  In other words, being a citizen in a democratic society is not a spectator sport, but one in which people must take an active part in order for it to function properly. There are several points that Held outlines for the Participatory Democracy Theory that would not be compatible with Ron Paul’s beliefs.

Firstly, one of the foundations that participatory democracy rests on is the “direct amelioration of the poor resource base of many social groups through redistribution of material resources” (Held 215).  Historically, this has only happened through means of government programs and economic regulation, programs like unemployment, SNAP benefits, Social Security and WIC – things that act as a government-provided safety net for the more vulnerable members of society such as the poor, the elderly, and low income (and often single) women with young children or infants. Ron Paul is fervent in his beliefs that “markets are supposed to work in a natural way” (Adams 1) and would not be amenable to what he would perceive as government interference in the free market system to help redistribute those resources and help level the playing field for all members of society.

Secondly, an important aspect of participatory democracy as Held outlines it is “nurturing a concern for collective problems” and again, one could argue that the highly competitive, free market ideal which Ron Paul espouses would not be compatible with collective concerns. His political views place emphasis, rather, on the individual rather than the collective, the “I”, so to speak, rather than the “we”.  He notes that “individual effort is the key to worldly endeavors…. [and] man is free to make personal choices and be responsible for his actions” (Paul 1).  This is a noble ideal and rugged individualism has always been dear to the heart of American political thought, but it perhaps does not take into account, as the participatory theory does, the myriad social problems of poverty, broken family structures, lack of access to good education or health care, mental health issues and exposure to violence that are very real problems in our society and might well require some level of government intervention to ameliorate.  After all, how can someone dealing with any of these aforementioned problems really participate in their democracy in any meaningful way?

Thirdly, participatory democracy calls for the “re-examination of childcare provision so that women as well as men can take up the opportunity to participate in public life” (Held 215) but this again would likely be anathema to Ron Paul, because childcare on such a massive scale would also likely involve government services: after all, one of the largest childcare providers we have now is the much-praised Head Start program which provides childcare and early childhood education to low-income families and is both government-run and taxpayer-funded.  Paul would likely call this “welfarism…which will one day precipitate a crisis that will truly test our will to live a free society” (Paul 3).   Thus, we see that a politician who fits nicely into the mold of one democratic theory does not always fit well into another, and that these theories are competing in the American political landscape even today.

References

“About the Mises Institute”.  The Mises Institute Website. 2013.  Web. 25 April 2014.

“About Ron Paul”.  Ron Paul, M.D. Official Website.  2012.  Web. 25 April 2014.

Adams, B. “Free Market versus Government Intervention: Ron Paul and Paul Krugman Face Off in Bloomberg Debate”.  The Blaze Online.  2012. Web. 25 April 2014.

Held, David.  [need bibliographical information here]

Paul, R. “A Republic, If You Can Keep It”.  Ron Paul, M.D. Official Website. 2000. Web. 25 April 2014.

Paul. R. Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property.  Montgomery: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.  2008. Print.

Paul, R.  Revolution: A Manifesto.  New York: Hatchette Book Group. 2008. Print.

“Ron Paul: A Brief History of a Shining Political Career”. Ron Paul for Congress Website. 2010. Web. 25 April 2014.